If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

My friend, I trust the mods here and I know you do too. I'm just saying discussion outside an echo chamber is healthy until it is observed as being unhealthy. I think we are on the same page.

PS> I am going to win our bet. :D

We are on the same page. Just wanted to make a point to those that think they can overwhelm us with spam.

PS. My hopes of winning the bet are hanging by a thin thread. If I was playing blackjack, I would give the house half of my chips bet and cut my loses. You better start saving up your nickels and dimes just in case.:)
However, my only chance is if Bachmann flubs a dub and Perry does not get in.

We are on the same page. Just wanted to make a point to those that think they can overwhelm us with spam.

PS. My hopes of winning the bet are hanging by a thin thread. If I was playing blackjack, I would give the house half of my chips bet and cut my loses. You better start saving up your nickels and dimes just in case.:)
However, my only chance is if Bachmann flubs a dub and Perry does not get in.

But why has he never ran for a Senate seat in 20 years? Answer, he could not win. He has no shot at getting the nomination because nothing has changed since he ran the last time. It is going to be the same old same old. If Dr Nutz thinks he is so popular, he should run for the vacant TX Senate seat.

What's changed, is that Paul's polling numbers in Texas (comprising the 2nd-largest bloc of Electoral Votes of any of the 50 States) are up considerably from where they were, at this stage in the last Election Cycle. At no point in the last Election Cycle was Paul ever the Front-Runner in Texas. Now, he's already the Front-Runner (and if Perry drops out, or decides not to run, the opportunity exists for Paul to increase his lead in Texas even further).

Also, Paul's fundraising is up about 400% from where it was, at this stage in the last Election Cycle.

Active Voters and Money. Both are up HUGE for Paul, since 2008. These two factors alone are game-changers for him.

Why do you follow this man like he is some kind of Cult leader? haven't seen some devotion since obama ran for Prez.

Because even if he doesn't win the Nomination itself, I don't intend to apologize for WANTING a guy who is 100% Pro-Life, 100% Pro-Second Amendment, and 100% Pro-Capitalism, to have some input on the 2012 Republican Platform.

Last I checked, these are fundamental Conservative positions. And it's been a long time since I remember a Republican Nominee whom I felt genuinely supported Conservatives on these core issues.

The former is true and I am glad to have him doing so to insert ideas, which is Mr. Paul's goal in doing so since he is smart enough to know that interrupting the same old conversation is the most he can accomplish. Many of his supporters don't get that, but he does. I give Paul more credit than most here, but I must say that his rabid followers get far less credit from me because of their disconnect from the reality I just spelled out.

Then we're likely to agree on more than you might think. Even if Paul does not win the Nomination, I'm going to chalk it up as at least a "small win" if he does swing the eventual Nominee, and the 2012 Republican Platform, more towards the Right in being 100% Pro-Life, 100% Pro-Guns, and 100% Pro-Capitalism.

As for the latter, polls have proven themselves to be less and less valuable these days for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that often they are conducted over the phone so that only those with a traditional landline will be respondents. That skews such polling right off the bat because it represents a cohort that is not a fair sampling by virtue of the diminishing sampling range as more and more people migrate to mobile phones and VoIP (e.g. Skype). In short, polling these days has become what climate science has become these days: untrustworthy. It is very easy and lucrative to make the data match your conclusion rather than the other way around.

True; but I think what's important here is the Trend, not perhaps the precise percentages (where certainly some Margin For Error always exists). For Paul, in both Active Voter polls and Fundraising, the Trend is WAY up, from where he was at this stage in the last Election Cycle. And, as I said -- even if the only ultimate result of that, is that Paul is able to swing the eventual Nominee and 2012 Platform more to the Right on the issues I care about (Pro-Life, Pro-Guns, Pro-Capitalism), I'll be quite pleased if he has that much effect.

Do you believe in AGW too?

No, but I believe the Polls indicating that a lot of Government-funded "Environmental scientists" do claim to believe in AGW. I just don't think that these "scientists" are necessarily the most pure-hearted, objective of innocent souls. (For myself, I believe in Global Warming; it's called, "The Sun").

Because even if he doesn't win the Nomination itself, I don't intend to apologize for WANTING a guy who is 100% Pro-Life, 100% Pro-Second Amendment, and 100% Pro-Capitalism, to have some input on the 2012 Republican Platform.

Last I checked, these are fundamental Conservative positions. And it's been a long time since I remember a Republican Nominee whom I felt genuinely supported Conservatives on these core issues.

Not since this guy, actually:

If he believed in just these things I could get behind him but some of his views on 9/11 and Israel(not to mention foreign policy) are a bit off the beaten track.

If he believed in just these things I could get behind him but some of his views on 9/11 and Israel(not to mention foreign policy) are a bit off the beaten track.

Precisely which of his views on 9/11, Israel, or Foreign Policy, do you take issue with?

I ask not to be adversarial, but out of genuine interest. In many cases, I've seen views on these subjects which are attributed to Dr. Paul by his opponents, which are not his own stated views at all -- and which he has, in some cases (like the ridiculous notion of 9/11 being a US Government operation) specifically and forcefully disavowed.

Precisely which of his views on 9/11, Israel, or Foreign Policy, do you take issue with?

I ask not to be adversarial, but out of genuine interest. In many cases, I've seen views on these subjects which are attributed to Dr. Paul by his opponents, which are not his own stated views at all -- and which he has, in some cases (like the ridiculous notion of 9/11 being a US Government operation) specifically and forcefully disavowed.